FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELICA MEJIA RODRIGUEZ, No. 13-71166
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-955-613
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Angelica Mejia Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Mejia Rodriguez does not claim past persecution in El Salvador, and
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Mejia Rodriguez did not
establish a well-founded fear of persecution, see Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971,
976-77 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not establish the requisite objective component
of a well-founded fear of persecution); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816
(9th Cir. 2001) (“[a]n applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened,
even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the
country without incident”). Thus, Mejia Rodriguez’s asylum claim fails.
Because Mejia Rodriguez did not meet the lower burden of proof for
asylum, it follows that she has not met the higher standard for withholding of
removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mejia Rodriguez’s contention that her case
be remanded for an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
2 13-71166
Finally, Mejia Rodriguez’s remaining contentions are unexhausted. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 13-71166